If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Common Dreams)   "If Nelson Mandela Really Had Won, He Wouldn't Be Seen as a Universal Hero." If you had "four" as the number of paragraphs it takes for Ayn Rand's name to come up, have a cookie   (commondreams.org) divider line 45
    More: Stupid, Ayn Rand, Nelson Mandela, humans, Congress of Paraguay, crocodile tears, South Africans, ANC  
•       •       •

1049 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Dec 2013 at 11:31 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-09 11:33:05 AM
I... don't think you know who Zizek is, subs.
 
2013-12-09 11:38:47 AM
This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.
 
2013-12-09 11:39:10 AM
Damn you Mandela for not being able to completely and totally undo ~400 years of damage and oppression within the span of your remaining life.
 
2013-12-09 11:40:24 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.


I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.
 
2013-12-09 11:40:42 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.


The only thing that can remember him when he lives is adding his sh*tty blog to your web favorites, and that was via an accidental series of key strokes.
 
2013-12-09 11:41:36 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.


Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?
 
2013-12-09 11:42:36 AM
Ahhh the cult of Ayn Rand and her Flying Circus of Objectivist Silliness, Nincompoopery, and Neo-Calvinist Pre-determinism.  Where would we be without you?

/oh that's right...better off
 
2013-12-09 11:43:02 AM
FTFA: It is easy to ridicule Ayn Rand

I totally agree.

but there is a grain of truth in the famous "hymn to money" from her novel Atlas Shrugged: "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns or dollars. Take your choice - there is no other." Did Marx not say something similar in his well-known formula of how, in the universe of commodities, "relations between people assume the guise of relations among things"?

Wait a second.  Is this "writer" saying that Marx was right?  How can Marx and Rand be right?

Also isn't it obvious to pretty much anyone in this modern world that money can be used to make tools of fellow human beings just as easily as the sword did in the past?  This is where the role of government CAN actually help people.  By making the enslavement of your fellow man a difficult undertaking.  Obviously, it'll never be gotten rid of, but it can be mitigated to the point where individual freedom is possible be enforcing a social contract that balances the tryanny or the rich and powerful against the ability for people to live their lives as they choose.  I would suggest any governmental system worth living under has this balancing act.
 
2013-12-09 11:43:09 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.

Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?


No, really, SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy?
 
2013-12-09 11:43:29 AM
You guys know Slavoj Zizek (the author of TFA) is a famous author, professor, and philosopher, right? And one of the foremost Marxist thinkers of the day? Within academic philosophy circles, particularly in Europe, the phrase "rock god of Marxism" would not be wholly inappropriate.
 
2013-12-09 11:45:01 AM
The whole article is basically criticizing Mandela because he didn't fart rainbows and unicorns.
 
2013-12-09 11:45:07 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: You guys know Slavoj Zizek (the author of TFA) is a famous author, professor, and philosopher, right? And one of the foremost Marxist thinkers of the day? Within academic philosophy circles, particularly in Europe, the phrase "rock god of Marxism" would not be wholly inappropriate.


But what has he actually accomplished for other people that he expects us to listen when he criticizes Mandela for leaving behind unfinished business?

Zizek is nobody, no matter how hard you want to push this meme.
 
2013-12-09 11:45:38 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.

Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?

No, really, SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy?


You seem to be new to the interwebs. Or, at the very least, unnecessarily shocked.
 
2013-12-09 11:46:27 AM

Anti_illuminati: The My Little Pony Killer: The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.

Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?

No, really, SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy?

You seem to be new to the interwebs. Or, at the very least, unnecessarily shocked.


You have added much to this conversation.
 
2013-12-09 11:49:09 AM

Mercutio74: Wait a second. Is this "writer" saying that Marx was right? How can Marx and Rand be right?


Both of them said many things. Is it really so far-fetched that each of them might have been right sometimes?
 
2013-12-09 11:53:06 AM

The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: You guys know Slavoj Zizek (the author of TFA) is a famous author, professor, and philosopher, right? And one of the foremost Marxist thinkers of the day? Within academic philosophy circles, particularly in Europe, the phrase "rock god of Marxism" would not be wholly inappropriate.

But what has he actually accomplished for other people that he expects us to listen when he criticizes Mandela for leaving behind unfinished business?

Zizek is nobody, no matter how hard you want to push this meme.


There's the whole bit where he is one of the most respected academic political commentators. I kind of think that might qualify him to comment on political matters in an op-ed for the freaking Guardian.
 
2013-12-09 11:54:38 AM

Mercutio74: FTFA: It is easy to ridicule Ayn Rand

I totally agree.

but there is a grain of truth in the famous "hymn to money" from her novel Atlas Shrugged: "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns or dollars. Take your choice - there is no other." Did Marx not say something similar in his well-known formula of how, in the universe of commodities, "relations between people assume the guise of relations among things"?

Wait a second.  Is this "writer" saying that Marx was right?  How can Marx and Rand be right?

Also isn't it obvious to pretty much anyone in this modern world that money can be used to make tools of fellow human beings just as easily as the sword did in the past?  This is where the role of government CAN actually help people.  By making the enslavement of your fellow man a difficult undertaking.  Obviously, it'll never be gotten rid of, but it can be mitigated to the point where individual freedom is possible be enforcing a social contract that balances the tryanny or the rich and powerful against the ability for people to live their lives as they choose.  I would suggest any governmental system worth living under has this balancing act.


The author has detected a common thread between them though not the correct one I think.

Marx, if considered in its most perverted forms such as Leninism and Maoism, believes in violently purging the bourgeoise to establish a proletariat paradise free of the "free loading parasites" of the capitalist classes

Rand created a theory were a libertarian paradise will emerge once the "free loading parasites" of the proletariat are purged and allow the capitalist classes to advance unhindered to their true natural level.

They both believe that "the other" is some sort of scum that is really the cause for all the world's problems. It's the age old problem of idiots trying to sound smart by saying the world will become perfect if only we could get rid of "those people".  The only problem of course being that once you get rid of "those people" and everything is still farked up you then need to find a new "the other" to point your seething masses of drones at.

/Your fellow human beings are not your enemy
//The only true enemy is the idea which teaches one to exclude and oppress your fellow human beings
 
2013-12-09 11:57:14 AM
I'm adding "It is easy to ridicule Ayn Rand" to my list of things to say when I need to point out the obvious
 
2013-12-09 12:02:14 PM

Millennium: Mercutio74: Wait a second. Is this "writer" saying that Marx was right? How can Marx and Rand be right?

Both of them said many things. Is it really so far-fetched that each of them might have been right sometimes?


I think they're dissimilar points.  Rand is basically saying without money people are enslaved.  Marx seems to be saying that relations between things (exchanging money for good as opposed to exchanging goods for goods or goods for labour)  can be problematic since it can remove control of the producers from the equation.

Rand is just plain wrong and Marx, though in my opinion somewhat correct, is purely an academic point of view because the kind of relationship he proposes can't work on a country (or even large city) sized population of human beings.  We're not wired for Marxism, just as those of us who aren't autism spectrum personality types nor teenage boys aren't wired for Objectivis
 
2013-12-09 12:09:21 PM
The fact is, people change over time, and Nelson Mandela was no more immune to this than anyone else. He never lost sight of his leftist roots, but he did indeed dropped many of his most radical viewpoints in his later years. This wasn't just critical to his success: it's also much if not most of the reason he came to be so much more universally accepted in recent years than he was in earlier decades. But then, that's part of what happens when you stop seeing the world in terms of heroes and villains, and come to the understanding that one way or another, we've all got to live with each other.

I do not think that Mandela died a "bitter man" as Zizek supposes. Doubtless there is more he would have liked to do, but he lived to see that he had done well, and that his work would be continued: about as much as anyone can ask for. But his work and his goals did change somewhat, over the years, until they no longer matched up quite so nicely with Zizek's ideology. I suspect that this is what Zizek is really so angry about: he doesn't dare brand Nelson Mandela a sellout, so instead he categorizes him as having lost in spite of all he accomplished.
 
2013-12-09 12:15:32 PM
This  every thread: my ignorance is as good as your knowledge
 
2013-12-09 12:18:58 PM

omgrtfa: This  every thread: my ignorance is as good as your knowledge


I'm curious, what's your issue with this thread in particular?
 
2013-12-09 12:20:34 PM
Subby apparently stopped reading as soon as he saw the words "Ayn Rand"--though I can't entirely blame him. Zizek acknowledges the greatness of Mandela in the final paragraph and is by no means attempting to vilify the man. As a Marxist, his criticism is that Mandela did not use his power to champion a broader Socialist movement more in line with his earlier revolutionary ethos. Regardless of whether you buy into the whole pinko-Commie thing, his argument isn't a baseless one and shouldn't be immediately dismissed because of a dirty name-drop.
 
2013-12-09 12:25:53 PM
Is Drew speaking to a special ed. class today, or something?  It could explain the where and the how for some of today's greenlights.
 
2013-12-09 12:27:30 PM

Mercutio74: Millennium: Mercutio74: Wait a second. Is this "writer" saying that Marx was right? How can Marx and Rand be right?

We're not wired for Marxism, just as those of us who aren't autism spectrum personality types nor teenage boys aren't wired for Objectivis


I would disagree. I would argue that political Marxism's most obvious successor is democratic socialism, which I believe can and does work. Look at Germany, Sweden, and Norway. I willing to grant however, that democratic socialism becomes exponentially harder to enact the less homogenous a polity is. Thus making democratic socialism as it has traditionally been practiced in Europe a near impossibility in the US.

Objectivism on the other hand is designed purely to lead to an anarchy-capitialist state
 
2013-12-09 12:38:55 PM
FTA: Is this, however, the whole story? Two key facts remain obliterated by this celebratory vision. In South Africa, the miserable life of the poor majority broadly remains the same as under apartheid......

I stopped reading right there.  The writer does not understand the fact that, under apartheid, the poor majority had no say in how they were to be treated.  Also, the writer does not understand that it will take a long time to change a "colonial rule" system that had been established for centuries in South Africa.

I have mentally added the writer to my "Retroactive Abortion" list.
 
2013-12-09 12:41:51 PM

Pubby: Mercutio74: Millennium: Mercutio74: Wait a second. Is this "writer" saying that Marx was right? How can Marx and Rand be right?

We're not wired for Marxism, just as those of us who aren't autism spectrum personality types nor teenage boys aren't wired for Objectivis

I would disagree. I would argue that political Marxism's most obvious successor is democratic socialism, which I believe can and does work. Look at Germany, Sweden, and Norway. I willing to grant however, that democratic socialism becomes exponentially harder to enact the less homogenous a polity is. Thus making democratic socialism as it has traditionally been practiced in Europe a near impossibility in the US.

Objectivism on the other hand is designed purely to lead to an anarchy-capitialist state


I'm not disagreeing with you per se.  I think there's enough of a difference between social democracy and Marxism that it's a pretty wide gulf to cross.  But philosophically, I see your point.  Social democracy does try to maximize class mobility and is the closest thing that we have to a meritocracy in terms of a society that actual human beings can live (and thrive) in without having some kind of artificial power based installed (be they capitalists, trust fund moguls, or a monarchy).  But even social democracies have room for a small bourgeois class, which, if I remember Marx properly (and if I was taught Marxism properly to begin with) there's a fairly healthy distrust of a moneyed class that contributes little value to society when compared to the amount of resources under the control of one person.

I definitely agree that Objectivism is a non-starter in terms of how to run a nation... or any group of people larger than the amount that could live in somebody's mom's basement.
 
2013-12-09 01:05:09 PM

Mercutio74: I think they're dissimilar points. Rand is basically saying without money people are enslaved. Marx seems to be saying that relations between things (exchanging money for good as opposed to exchanging goods for goods or goods for labour) can be problematic since it can remove control of the producers from the equation.


They aren't so dissimilar. The Marx quote is simply acknowledging a fundamental relationship of man and objects as a proxy of the relationship between men themselves in a commodity-based society, whereas the Rand quote is asserting that a society built upon a relationship of man and money is superior to any other. Zizek uses these two quotes to illustrate that that the great lesson of socialism is the abolition of the proxy relationship of man and object (money, goods, services, whatever) without providing a communist structure to fill the void dooms the society to a relationship of man dominating man.

The two are politically diametric, but both are simply providing an observation of the nature of the relationship between men in a society. He likely chose these two quotes because the juxtaposition of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx is bound to draw attention to his argument. If this thread is any indication, he succeeded.
 
2013-12-09 01:06:29 PM

Anti_illuminati: The My Little Pony Killer: The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.

Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?

No, really, SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy?

You seem to be new to the interwebs. Or, at the very least, unnecessarily shocked.


Educate us poor plebians, please.
 
2013-12-09 01:14:39 PM

Rann Xerox: FTA: Is this, however, the whole story? Two key facts remain obliterated by this celebratory vision. In South Africa, the miserable life of the poor majority broadly remains the same as under apartheid......

I stopped reading right there.  The writer does not understand the fact that, under apartheid, the poor majority had no say in how they were to be treated.  Also, the writer does not understand that it will take a long time to change a "colonial rule" system that had been established for centuries in South Africa.

I have mentally added the writer to my "Retroactive Abortion" list.


Zizek is purely speaking on economic terms. Though apartheid ended and the majority population gained political power, they remain poor because of the mixed economy that Mandela could have used his power to abolish in favor of a pure communist system. He's not asserting that the end of Apartheid had no benefit whatsoever.
 
2013-12-09 01:26:38 PM
Mercutio74:

I definitely agree that Objectivism is a non-starter in terms of how to run a nation... or any group of people larger than the amount that could live in somebody's mom's basement.

An objectivist society would have a very hard time sustaining itself.  Absolutist positions require determined, sustained, and unified propaganda effort to enforce homogeneity of thought in the populace.  I do not see how that can be achieved in a free-market, free-speech, democratic society (both Objectivist principles).  Otherwise, the state would probably devolve to something like most of the other democracies in the Western world (assuming it's a Western country adopting it, as would likely be the case).  Objectivism simply does not appeal to most people in it's most harsh and austere form, and normal methods of idea dissemination would soon turn the country in a normal mixed-capitalist state.

In general, most political absolutist positions are not viable in a non-totalitarian state for long.  And in a totalitarian state, absolutist positions are rarely followed by the elite... those positions are stated for the masses, and then quietly ignored when expedient by the elite.
 
2013-12-09 01:27:08 PM

LoneWolf343: Anti_illuminati: The My Little Pony Killer: The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.

Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?

No, really, SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy?

You seem to be new to the interwebs. Or, at the very least, unnecessarily shocked.

Educate us poor plebians, please.

LoneWolf343: Anti_illuminati: The My Little Pony Killer: The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.

Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?

No, really, SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy?

You seem to be new to the interwebs. Or, at the very least, unnecessarily shocked.

Educate us poor plebians, please.


On why "SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy"? On the interwebs? Where there are millions and millions of people with an infinite combination for interests and ideologies? Ummm, okay.
 
2013-12-09 01:32:18 PM
Anti_illuminati:

Almost 12 years and I still haven't learned to use to the preview button. Geesh.
 
2013-12-09 01:33:59 PM
Right wingers are currently in a dual front propaganda war against Nelson Mandela and the Pope.

I suppose if that doesn't work we will get Ted Cruz and John Boehner using Santa Claus like a Chinese finger trap live on C-Span?
 
2013-12-09 01:35:30 PM

Anti_illuminati: Anti_illuminati:

Almost 12 years and I still haven't learned to use to the preview button. Geesh.


Real men post without porno.
 
2013-12-09 01:37:36 PM

steppenwolf: They aren't so dissimilar. The Marx quote is simply acknowledging a fundamental relationship of man and objects as a proxy of the relationship between men themselves in a commodity-based society, whereas the Rand quote is asserting that a society built upon a relationship of man and money is superior to any other. Zizek uses these two quotes to illustrate that that the great lesson of socialism is the abolition of the proxy relationship of man and object (money, goods, services, whatever) without providing a communist structure to fill the void dooms the society to a relationship of man dominating man.

The two are politically diametric, but both are simply providing an observation of the nature of the relationship between men in a society. He likely chose these two quotes because the juxtaposition of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx is bound to draw attention to his argument. If this thread is any indication, he succeeded.


But it makes no sense.  If I said that Dr. Martin Luther King said that man should be judged not on the colour of his skin, but the content of his character and Hitler said that blacks are inferior to aryans...  I would be demonstrating that both men had opinions about race and intrinsic value.  Here, we have Rand saying that the existence of money ensures that men are free and Marx saying that the existence of money can be a means of keeping power out of the hands of workers.  Yes, they both had thoughts about the effect money has on society, but they came to opposite opinions.
 
2013-12-09 01:40:05 PM

Mercutio74: Millennium: Mercutio74: Wait a second. Is this "writer" saying that Marx was right? How can Marx and Rand be right?

Both of them said many things. Is it really so far-fetched that each of them might have been right sometimes?

I think they're dissimilar points.  Rand is basically saying without money people are enslaved.  Marx seems to be saying that relations between things (exchanging money for good as opposed to exchanging goods for goods or goods for labour)  can be problematic since it can remove control of the producers from the equation.

Rand is just plain wrong and Marx, though in my opinion somewhat correct, is purely an academic point of view because the kind of relationship he proposes can't work on a country (or even large city) sized population of human beings.  We're not wired for Marxism, just as those of us who aren't autism spectrum personality types nor teenage boys aren't wired for Objectivis


In Karl Marx's defense he did live in a country where the poor and working where completely screwed over more than the US now and he was the first to admit he might be completely wrong. Rand knew that she was right and demanded that everyone listen to her.
 
2013-12-09 02:09:54 PM

Mercutio74: But it makes no sense. If I said that Dr. Martin Luther King said that man should be judged not on the colour of his skin, but the content of his character and Hitler said that blacks are inferior to aryans... I would be demonstrating that both men had opinions about race and intrinsic value. Here, we have Rand saying that the existence of money ensures that men are free and Marx saying that the existence of money can be a means of keeping power out of the hands of workers. Yes, they both had thoughts about the effect money has on society, but they came to opposite opinions.


If this is what Zizek was attempting to compare, I agree that it would not make much sense. However, in the context of this piece, the author is illustrating the fundamental nature of a society by providing two quotes from polar opposite thinkers (used loosely in Ayn Rand's case) that both acknowledge the tendency for man to focus on things rather than on each other. I think you're overanalyzing a bit, here.
 
2013-12-09 02:11:58 PM

Pubby: Mercutio74: Millennium: Mercutio74: Wait a second. Is this "writer" saying that Marx was right? How can Marx and Rand be right?

We're not wired for Marxism, just as those of us who aren't autism spectrum personality types nor teenage boys aren't wired for Objectivis

I would disagree. I would argue that political Marxism's most obvious successor is democratic socialism, which I believe can and does work. Look at Germany, Sweden, and Norway. I willing to grant however, that democratic socialism becomes exponentially harder to enact the less homogenous a polity is. Thus making democratic socialism as it has traditionally been practiced in Europe a near impossibility in the US.

Objectivism on the other hand is designed purely to lead to an anarchy-capitialist state


Norwegian democratic socialism looks and sounds great... until you want to buy a beer.
 
2013-12-09 02:48:04 PM
www.sondrakistan.com
 
2013-12-09 05:00:21 PM
Mandela's goal was to restructure the government and economy in a way which was very similar to strong European Socialist governments, but unfortunately, he focused primarily on ensuring "social equality" rather than economic equality.

Other members of his collective focused on the economic side of the equation, and they were outsmarted by IMF, World Bank, and Chicago-School capitalists into giving away all of their economic power to their former oppressors. Mandela was well aware in retrospect how he was only able to end apartheid in name only.

The problem with making an argument about his Marxist or Randian purity is that it is a philosophical argument that doesn't take into account the realities of the situation. Mandela's economic team was convinced by the opposition that opening up their markets to outside investment and not subsidizing agriculture and the poor were ways to increase the standard of living over time and they were out-right lied to.

Combine that with the billions of dollars that they were more or less required to pay back with interest to the very people that oppressed them and used their labor for pennies on the dollar. It's like asking the slave to pay his master back for the crops that aren't getting harvested.
 
2013-12-09 06:06:57 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: You guys know Slavoj Zizek (the author of TFA) is a famous author, professor, and philosopher, right? And one of the foremost Marxist thinkers of the day? Within academic philosophy circles, particularly in Europe, the phrase "rock god of Marxism" would not be wholly inappropriate.

But what has he actually accomplished for other people that he expects us to listen when he criticizes Mandela for leaving behind unfinished business?

Zizek is nobody, no matter how hard you want to push this meme.


Sorry, Zizek isn't a nobody.  Just because you're not educated doesn't make him nobody.
 
2013-12-09 06:17:44 PM
South Africa has exchanged the intolerance of the Afrikaner nationalists for the incompetence of the ANC.  Big whoop.
 
2013-12-09 08:50:20 PM
honestly, life's too short to read every retard's point of view
 
2013-12-09 10:57:45 PM

Anti_illuminati: LoneWolf343: Anti_illuminati: The My Little Pony Killer: The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.

Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?

No, really, SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy?

You seem to be new to the interwebs. Or, at the very least, unnecessarily shocked.

Educate us poor plebians, please.LoneWolf343: Anti_illuminati: The My Little Pony Killer: The My Little Pony Killer: Obama's Reptiloid Master: The My Little Pony Killer: This guy sounds upset that nobody is going to remember him when he dies.

I... don't think Zizek is worried about his legacy.

Then why are we giving his concern over Mandela's any credence?

No, really, SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy?

You seem to be new to the interwebs. Or, at the very least, unnecessarily shocked.

Educate us poor plebians, please.

On why "SHOULD any of us have heard of this guy"? On the interwebs? Where there are millions and millions of people with an infinite combination for interests and ideologies? Ummm, okay.


Ah, now I know why the name sounded familiar. He popped up on one of the theology blogs I frequent. Seems like an interesting person. I would rather spend a while day talking to him than five minutes talking with you, since he apparently can think and explain things for himself rather than bloviate about how awesome he is and yet have nothing to justify it.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report